Re: teaching? morals? ethics?

In a message dated 3/5/99 5:30:31 AM Central Standard Time,
hesse600@tem.nhl.nl writes:
<<
> There is, of course, need for great discrimination, as all
> knowledge is not for those who are ethically known to be
> unworthy." I mean to stress the idea of "ethically," because
> there is always the potential for a person to selfishly abuse
> knowledge. And if a teacher unwisely gives information, the
> moral burden descends on that "teacher" who so unwisely gives
> information to the "wrong" person.
>>
This miscontrues the nature of an esoteric teaching. Secret in Sanskrit,
ancient Persian, Tibetan, and Chinese is not merely witheld information. It
is a quality of being or of awareness that one cannot "possess" without being
it. Or, secret to surfing is not some information but the skilled ability to
surf. Nobody can get real secret without becoming qualified. And process of
becoming qualified makes it no longer secret to them for they have realized
it. True teacher merely assists in birth of potency latent in student. To
teach surfing, you have student develop their surfing skills. In
spirituality, higher states are ipso facto higher cognitive and ethical
skills. You can't get one without other anymore that you can get blue without
getting a color or a square without getting a shape. The real secrets are
within oneself. They emerge when one qualifies oneself. A teacher has no
role in judging whether one is qualified to receive secret. Qualification and
secret emerge together as one. Teacher is only mid-wife and coach in training
you to be your true self. Or is pseudo-teacher of masonic and fraternity
nonsense with passwords and funny handshakes being the, shhh! (looking both
ways), ready?, "s-e-c-r-e-t-s. Don't tell!
Grigor Ananikian